Hard to Vary or Hardly Usable?

Showing only ideas leading to #5446.

See full discussion​·​See most recent related ideas
  Log in or sign up to participate in this discussion.
With an account, you can revise, criticize, and comment on ideas.

Discussions can branch out indefinitely. You may need to scroll sideways.
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis HackethalOP​·​#3069​·​
Only version leading to #5446 (9 total)
 This idea has an active bounty worth USD 3,600.00. Log in to participate.

My critique of David Deutsch’s The Beginning of Infinity as a programmer. In short, his ‘hard to vary’ criterion at the core of his epistemology is fatally underspecified and impossible to apply.

Deutsch says that one should adopt explanations based on how hard they are to change without impacting their ability to explain what they claim to explain. The hardest-to-change explanation is the best and should be adopted. But he doesn’t say how to figure out which is hardest to change.

A decision-making method is a computational task. He says you haven’t understood a computational task if you can’t program it. He can’t program the steps for finding out how ‘hard to vary’ an explanation is, if only because those steps are underspecified. There are too many open questions.

So by his own yardstick, he hasn’t understood his epistemology.

You will find that and many more criticisms here: https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/hard-to-vary-or-hardly-usable

Battle-tested
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis HackethalOP​·​#5415​·​

Brett says the bounty is “impossible” because “it’s asking for a definition for something that *cannot be defined* in the way the challenge demands.”

Criticism of #3069Criticized1*
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis HackethalOP​·​#5442​·​
Only version leading to #5446 (2 total)

Dirk replies that the bounty doesn’t ask for essentialist definitions. It instead asks for clarity around how to actually use HTV:

Rejecting essentialism doesn't grant your ideas immunity from clarification. Being vague is not something to be proud of.

By your standard, I could invent any bullshit property of explanations, call it "glorpiness" and when you ask what it means, reply that definitions miss the point.

Criticism of #5415 Battle-tested
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis HackethalOP​·​#5444​·​

Brett replies, among other things: “Calling it ‘bullshit’ doesn’t win the argument. People have been doing that kind of thing with Popper, falsification and conjectural knowledge since the 1930s.”

Criticism of #5442Criticized2*
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis HackethalOP​·​#5446​·​

Brett’s response basically ignores existing criticisms and sounds like he’s lecturing people who haven’t read Deutsch or Popper. He’s forgotten that I’ve already corrected him on several misattributions of his to Popper and his misinterpretation of BoI re preference formation.

Criticism of #5444